A question that any true socialist / capitalist should ask themselves.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: strongfp

Text

a reply to: Lumenari

I am literally the labor in the business I work in. I weld structural steel for sky scrapers and bridges. We also get our steel from all over the world.

But at the same time I am fully aware that several sources of 'office workers' have worked their ass off to get to me. and on top of that, several companies have worked day and night get us the steel to make such a structure.

So it all boils down to this statement:

If you sold books to publishers and represented 6 writers, labor would be your only worry.

Labor, in this case, would be the most important... intellectual labor.

Do you disagree?

My question still stands, which is more valuable labour or capital?

It would depend on the business.

I understand now why people get frustrated talking to socialists.

They don't seem to understand basic economics.

You keep your thread going on what came first, the chicken or the egg...

I'm trying to tell you it's a balance between both.

Start your own company, learn some reality and then check back in with your thoughts.

Because you know, if you were really good at what you did then you wouldn't be working for someone else.

Basic economics, again.

Agreed with the first point even though I'm an social capitalist. There's indeed a balance but it's nigh on impossible to argue asset stripping, game theory, stock markets, hedge funds, futures, sovereign wealth fund trade market is beneficial to anyone - even the main protagonists who instigated the procedures openly admit on film they lied to politicians and played them to get such policies implemented.

Also as an ex scientist and aircraft engineer - it's pretty hard to design several jet fighters, a multi-billion pound collaboration between NASA, Stanford, Harvard, MIT, ESA being the main data hub for the Solar Dynamics Observatory or designing SPICA telescope and working on Astroseismology.

Last time I checked the aircraft I was helping design in the UK over 20 years ago is now the US's F35. Everyone involved in these projects was a genius in their fields, it was a requirement of the job.

Surely if all the competent people become their own bosses there won't be any skilled or clever people to work for them, thus the business will collapse?

Co operation and competition are both important in business, technological advancement and increasing standards of living.

EDIT: Think I missed your whole 'it's a little bit more complicated than that' and 'depends on the business' part Luminari, my post above is agreeing with you if that's the case (Had a couple of pairs of pints in the pub, whoops)

Get this one, your all talking about capital already in the system. Naah.
Example:- a man has a billion dollars (that is what could be called his capital) but as it sits it's as of nothing, zero. Till he activates it. whether it's to employ people (to start a company) or invests it (which is using the labour of the banks etc.).
And as such his capital is useless until he employs labour.
Now labour is an inherent ability of man, in the ancient world (hunter gatherer society) man did not need capitol, just his labour to eat etc. So now you all be pedantic and say mans food in those times was capital.
Overall for capital to be anything there has to be labour, if not capital (however small or large) is as of nothing.

originally posted by: strongfp
I will keep it simple, short and sweet. My reasoning behind this question is very broad and in depth. But I want to hear ATS point of view, thoughts etc.

The overall equation and question is:

Does labour come before capital or does capital come before labour? Which is more important in the whole grand scale of economics.
Which is more valuable?

Without capital, no matter how much availabe labour there is, you are screwed.

Plenty of overpopulated, capital-poor ( and leftist) Third World countries prove the point beyond a doubt.

The overall equation and question is:

Does labour come before capital or does capital come before labour? Which is more important in the whole grand scale of economics.
Which is more valuable?

The problem with your question is that you want to separate these principles that cannot exist without the other. Each actually defines the other to make one complete cycle of a concept. Neither can stand alone.

Value is a biased individual perspective and not reality. Balance is always necessary in the whole grand scale of economics to continue functioning. If one places more emphasis solely one side of the equation the economy will fail.

a reply to: strongfp

Does labour come before capital or does capital come before labour?

Capital becomes before everything.

A business owner needs land,a building,pay for equipment, utilities, raw materials, and the list goes on.

Labor comes LAST. If at all in the era of ROBOTS. (That takes money too).

a reply to: neo96

Entirely depends upon the business model.

What good is a gold coin when it can only buy you a loaf bread.

Wasn't Communism originally meant to remove standards an currency if it had its way to remove classes an provide supplies, on individual basis's...then this happens.

a reply to: strongfp

Labor or capital, its all goods and services. The distinction is relative.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: strongfp

Does labour come before capital or does capital come before labour?

Capital becomes before everything.

A business owner needs land,a building,pay for equipment, utilities, raw materials, and the list goes on.

Labor comes LAST. If at all in the era of ROBOTS. (That takes money too).

I doubt a business/es and society would get far or last many months if they ignored basic labour requirements like food, health, education and ignored basic things like machines needed to be invented, breaking, needing repairing, updating, programming, optimization, contamination, fire, power cuts and thousands of other known issues.

A healthy mix is needed with both financial understanding to generate enough profit to employ more ad avoid redundancies/closure/sacking all workers but equally vital are the moral and ethical practices - the healthier, better educated, respected and incentivised a workforce the more productive and prepared to adapt to market changes/volatility - it's win-win for both company and the labour force

Someone with brains and skills isn't going to work for a company that'll take advantage of them, give poor if any fundamental necessities like healthcare, employment rights, training, COSHH awareness/safety gear and fire them the second they think their Capital is at risk -

All these topics falsely claim to have a scientific, logic based or mathematical which is nearly always caused by venture capitalists, hedge betting and dodgy investments of capital by owners too thick to realise economic/business/futures/commodities speculation was all admitted to be a complete and utter con by the same people who lobbied governments to adopt the policy and illegally wrote under pseudonyms in the press to make billions inside trade in then buying up companies that'd been successfully running for a couple of centuries and firing 70% of staff while demolishing factories to trick the books and make it appear was a justified and profitable one for the greater good - just so they could sell the concept to more countries, companies and make obscene personal wealth.

Crazy and new age as it may sound a mate is one of the top surgeons in Japan/the world - all staff arw oaid to take walks in nature and the blossom forrests as it massively increases health and production - while Transport for London introduced very basic breathing excercises for staff that cost nothing but reduced absense due to sickness, stress ans injury by over 75%.

Thinks were far, far worse in the US - look up any US company with a name related to Rand or her books - Rand models worked on predictable 'rational' swelf interested behaviour and declared the only two groups of people who act rationallty were economists and psychopaths - several million US citizens died directly as a result of their unfounded hypothesis and policy of removing emergency services from the non-super rich - think it was 1000,000 were murdered in the LA Fires few decades ago because of this after RAND models said don't save/help black people/poorer neighborhoods and remove public/emergency services from these areas o they hurry up and die so the town could claim it was richer.

A more succinct example is the entire world bank and IMF and World Bank failed to notice (opart from a few soles with remaining brain cells) or do anything to stop the financial crash of 2008 despite all the warning signs as they'e a bunch of number worshipers and bean counters and number worhiping and target chasing have taken over the Western public, political and business narratve over the last 45 years to create a fantasy narrative of a stable, predictable world and the patently absurd notion that by worshiping numbers and chasing targets, human beings would somehow be free - or at least it'd be easy to convince them they were three thinking once most non-conformists had been wiped out by design and those left over were too naiive/bombarded with PR, austerity, bankers taking over politics so economic models should run society, with peoples freedom and jobs being reduced and modelled on a computer system.

Politicians on the left and Right haven't lifted a finger to stop any of it and ran away leaving business and big banks to run suppesendly free and democratic countries unquestionably as both left and right politician realised the world is a chaotic place with no sense or narrative but the economic models claimed stability, predictability and that nothing would ever change. This phenomen started in te US and has grabbed disturiing pace - both parties spent billions making databaseas on everything an opposition party member has ever said so if any US pokitican changes their mind or tries to come up with a new policy - they're called a hypocrite and the idea/topic is abbandonned - It's been called the Static State theory fir a decade or so where the country is powerless to change or advance as robotics/infomatics rule people and freedom of choice, human nature to change your mind and develop ideas with more experience/thought - while the US public are ombarded with secret 'nudge units' that are gov departments whose ole aim is to get the public to do what politicians.banks/economists want, while the member of public is kept unaware of the existance of such units or exterior influence and falsely belives they're acting on their oen free will/have freedom of choice - the UK set up a copy of the US one in 2012 and leads in some ways.

TLR - If you believe either are faultless, one trumps the other or either can be neglected/ignored to help the other - it's time to pick up some books on the subject or at the least watch the confession videos (BBC and others, not some random conspiracy site) for a better understanding the crimes against humanity both extremes have repeatedly been guilty of


Apologies if it sounds argumentative or anything, not a dig at you or anyone: My gripe is with the main people and groups behind it - their psychopathic attitude and their PR statements are absolutely comedy gold if you have a dark sense of humour/can't help but laugh at adverts of bosses openly celebrating war and genocide, with the sound of dropping bomb around, then proudly claiming the massacres of women children are of no concern to themselves,s shareholders or others as business is countinuing as normal.